Refugees and asylum seekers don't all have aid

Thousands representing themselves, without legal counsel, in an adversarial system, to settle cases about their liberty and life. The Home Office is notoriously harsh, and their initial decisions notoriously poor. The article cites 250k appeals that were allowed over 10 years. In recent years, half of all appealed decisions have been reversed by the courts. But to be entitled to legal aid, a risk-averse solicitor has to determine that your likelihood of success is 50% or better. Without a lawyer representing you, your chances of success are much lower, no matter what the merits of your case may be. This is atrocious. It is beneath a modern, civilized country. I thought Sweden was bad but clearly we have much to learn about spitting on justice.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

While I'm no fan of the Home Office there's a logic failure there. Half of all appealed decisions may have been reversed but that doesn't mean that "the quality of initial Home Office decision making is poor." If "a risk-averse solicitor has to determine that your likelihood of success is 50% or better" then 49% succeeding is actually a better record for the Home Office than you'd have suggested. The cases ultimately taken to appeal by the risk-averse solicitors are not the same as the cases that were not taken to appeal.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

While I'm no fan of the Home Office there's a logic failure there. Half of all appealed decisions may have been reversed but that doesn't mean that "the quality of initial Home Office decision making is poor." If "a risk-averse solicitor has to determine that your likelihood of success is 50% or better" then 49% succeeding is actually a better record for the Home Office than you'd have suggested. The cases ultimately taken to appeal by the risk-averse solicitors are not the same as the cases that were not taken to appeal.

You obviously think that the non-appealed cases were all without merit. Yeah, great thinking right there.

When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Even if you only consider the appealed cases, they constitute an unacceptably large proportion of all cases. In addition to this, there is reason to believe many of those decisions that do not get appealed are also poor. Finally, it's worth noting that thousands of people appeal decisions without a lawyer representing them, most of those without any significant legal assistance of any kind. It is reasonable to believe many of those would've been successful had they had adequate legal assistance. There's no way the Home Office looks good here.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

No I don't "obviously" think that. That's not what I said remotely and there's no way to infer that from what I wrote.

All I wrote is that the cases are different based on Aimless's own self-selection reference. That doesn't mean they're "all without merit".

Let me ask you this: How exactly do you come up with those numbers of "50%"?

What exactly makes a 50% chance? And how is it different from 49%? Because it sounds definitely like rubbish pseudo-science to me. Apply some magic numbers and, presto, you've got a credible sounding number which in reality doesn't reflect anything.

"Hey, ma, look, he said it's 49.5463%! They don't make up such numbers!"

When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?

The point that is being missed in this discussion is that not every appeal is done through representation by a lawyer. And tbh; a 50% reversal is horrendous. Not so-so, not bad, but horrendous. It does indeed show that the Home Office is out to screw people out of their rights OR the Home Office employs people who aren't fit for the job. (My experiences with British officialdom would lead me to believe the second option is very very possible).

If I would have such an abysmal success rate I'd be out on my ass post haste. And for those who don't know it; my work ends in letters that tell people which court to go to if they don't like what they just read.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

Oh, we didn't miss the point. I posit that they have only a 50% reversal rate because of this magic shit-number.

Otherwise it would most likely be even worse.

This is, after all, the government which creates institutions which ask people with Down syndrome "where they caught it" or someone with multiple sclerosis when she's expected to be able to walk again.

The point that is being missed in this discussion is that not every appeal is done through representation by a lawyer. And tbh; a 50% reversal is horrendous. Not so-so, not bad, but horrendous. It does indeed show that the Home Office is out to screw people out of their rights OR the Home Office employs people who aren't fit for the job. (My experiences with British officialdom would lead me to believe the second option is very very possible).

If I would have such an abysmal success rate I'd be out on my ass post haste. And for those who don't know it; my work ends in letters that tell people which court to go to if they don't like what they just read.

It's not a 50% reversal. It's not even close to that. It's not 50% of all decisions get reversed, it is 49% of appealed cases that get reversed. What that doesn't say is what percentage of decisions get appealed.

If you make 225 decisions in a year and half of them get appealed and of that half that got appealed 25% get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 12.5%.
If you make 225 decisions in a year and 4% of them get appealed and of that 4% half get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 2%.

All else being equal I'd rather be in the latter position than the former.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Oh, we didn't miss the point. I posit that they have only a 50% reversal rate because of this magic shit-number.

Otherwise it would most likely be even worse.

Only if you are completely ignorant about statistics and how they work. Having a lower threshold for hearing appeals would result in a higher proportion of unsuccessful appeals. It would also result in more reversals in total, but the proportion of appealed cases that get reversed would go down not up.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Only if you are completely ignorant about statistics and how they work. Having a lower threshold for hearing appeals would result in a higher proportion of unsuccessful appeals. It would also result in more reversals in total, but the proportion of appealed cases that get reversed would go down not up.

How do you know? You're once again believing that this magic 50% shit-number is actually real! Again, for your argument to be valid you'd need to prove to me that this 50% number has an actual scientific basis.

And isn't pulled out of someone's ass.

It could very well be that what you think is "50% of successful appeal" is actually a "80% of successful appeal" and they just moved the threshold by padding the numbers.

When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?

How do you know? You're once again believing that this magic 50% shit-number is actually real! Again, for your argument to be valid you'd need to prove to me that this 50% number has an actual scientific basis.

And isn't pulled out of someone's ass.

It could very well be that what you think is "50% of successful appeal" is actually a "80% of successful appeal" and they just moved the threshold by padding the numbers.

Because the government attorneys aren't judging whether there is a 50% chance of successful appeal, the challenging attorneys as opposing lawyers taking on the cases are. Furthermore they're not reporting or declaring a percentage on a case by case basis, they're getting judged by how they perform on aggregate - with every incentive to make sure they win the cases they do take on.

If a challenging attorney thinks they've got an 80% chance of success they've no reason to turn it down.

The lawyers aren't asked to "tell anyone" a percentage.

The further down a bell curve you go, the lower a proportion of appealed cases will succeed.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

RB, if 49% of all appealed cases get reversed, and if many of those appeals are made without legal assistance, and if legal assistance increases the likelihood of success, then it's not unreasonable to assume that, if more people who appeal their decisions are provided with legal assistance, a higher proportion of appealed decisions may be reversed or significantly altered.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

RB, if 49% of all appealed cases get reversed, and if many of those appeals are made without legal assistance, and if legal assistance increases the likelihood of success, then it's not unreasonable to assume that, if more people who appeal their decisions are provided with legal assistance, a higher proportion of appealed decisions may be reversed or significantly altered.

Two statistics aren't known.

What proportion of appeals have legal assistance.
What proportion of cases aren't appealed.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Because the government attorneys aren't judging whether there is a 50% chance of successful appeal, the challenging attorneys as opposing lawyers taking on the cases are. Furthermore they're not reporting or declaring a percentage on a case by case basis, they're getting judged by how they perform on aggregate - with every incentive to make sure they win the cases they do take on.

If a challenging attorney thinks they've got an 80% chance of success they've no reason to turn it down.

The lawyers aren't asked to "tell anyone" a percentage.

The further down a bell curve you go, the lower a proportion of appealed cases will succeed.

Jesus Christ. It does not fucking matter WHO makes up the magic shit number. It still is a magic shit number.

It's not a 50% reversal. It's not even close to that. It's not 50% of all decisions get reversed, it is 49% of appealed cases that get reversed. What that doesn't say is what percentage of decisions get appealed.

If you make 225 decisions in a year and half of them get appealed and of that half that got appealed 25% get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 12.5%.
If you make 225 decisions in a year and 4% of them get appealed and of that 4% half get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 2%.

All else being equal I'd rather be in the latter position than the former.

It would be so nice if you wouldn't try to explain me my own job. I was of course talking of appealed cases. And having half of them reversed is a percentage so high that I don't even understand how the responsible ministers don't resign.

Also, if I would think a decision has a one in two chances of being overturned (that's appearantly a real category) I would think twice about putting my signature to it. A reversal rate hitting double digits would make me loose faith in my own fitness for my job.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

It would be so nice if you wouldn't try to explain me my own job. I was of course talking of appealed cases. And having half of them reversed is a percentage so high that I don't even understand how the responsible ministers don't resign.

Also, if I would think a decision has a one in two chances of being overturned (that's appearantly a real category) I would think twice about putting my signature to it. A reversal rate hitting double digits would make me loose faith in my own fitness for my job.

Except the decision doesn't have a one in two chance of being overturned. Nor is the reversal rate double-digits even unless over 20% of decisions are getting appealed in the first place.

I've made hundreds of decisions in my role as an employer for the last 13 years. For many of that period I was responsible for over 300 people. The appeal to my decisions is to take them to an employment tribunal and I've made hundreds of decisions over the years and sacked dozens of people but only twice has the decision ever been taken to an employment tribunal (once for sacking someone, once for denying someone a pay rise). I won both cases at tribunal. Had I lost either I wouldn't view it as a resigning matter and I wouldn't think one decision being overturned at tribunal meant I was terrible at my job or reflected the hundreds of other decisions that never got that far.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Except the decision doesn't have a one in two chance of being overturned. Nor is the reversal rate double-digits even unless over 20% of decisions are getting appealed in the first place.

I've made hundreds of decisions in my role as an employer for the last 13 years. For many of that period I was responsible for over 300 people. The appeal to my decisions is to take them to an employment tribunal and I've made hundreds of decisions over the years and sacked dozens of people but only twice has the decision ever been taken to an employment tribunal (once for sacking someone, once for denying someone a pay rise). I won both cases at tribunal. Had I lost either I wouldn't view it as a resigning matter and I wouldn't think one decision being overturned at tribunal meant I was terrible at my job or reflected the hundreds of other decisions that never got that far.

God, it's really not worth talking to you. Your real life experience as a layman in staffing says exactly nothing about the process revision of administrative decisions in court.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

The point was not my experience, the point was that by only including the full picture including decisions that aren't appealed do you have meaningful insight.

Your fantasy calculation doesn't mean shit if IN court HALF of all decisions which should be of such quality that they are upheld are reversed. Any government agency should panic over a 50% failrate. Cases brought to court and overturned should be rare exceptions, not 1 out of every 2. The only acceptable type of case where you consiously take the risk of reversal are those cases where the law needs clarification and having a judicial review serves that purpose. More than 5% reversals would be a strong reason to overhaul the entire decision making process. At 50% a mere overhaul will not do the trick. You would have to assume that the entire organization in charge of the administration of a particular remit is unfit for purpose.

And you know what? Your home office might very well be exactly that.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

Cases brought to court and overturned are a rare exception if the vast majority of cases aren't brought to court. You are measuring two related variables the cases that are brought to court AND overturned ... and that is not 50%. Any case which is either not overturned or not brought to court in the first place go against what your claiming.

Cases that have not got a realistic chance of being overturned should be going to court.

Furthermore that is not the only reason that appeals should happen. Appeals can happen for a variety of reasons including that further information is brought to light that was not there in the original decision making process. If the original decision maker is clear, consistent and reasonable about why they've reached their decision then that can help rule out flippant appeals and concentrate appeals only on those with a substantive issue which are more likely to succeed.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Cases brought to court and overturned are a rare exception if the vast majority of cases aren't brought to court. You are measuring two related variables the cases that are brought to court AND overturned ... and that is not 50%. Any case which is either not overturned or not brought to court in the first place go against what your claiming.

Cases that have not got a realistic chance of being overturned should be going to court.

Furthermore that is not the only reason that appeals should happen. Appeals can happen for a variety of reasons including that further information is brought to light that was not there in the original decision making process. If the original decision maker is clear, consistent and reasonable about why they've reached their decision then that can help rule out flippant appeals and concentrate appeals only on those with a substantive issue which are more likely to succeed.

250,000 cases are not "rare" in any sense of the word.

When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?